History of the Lordship Salvation Controversy

It could be argued that the Lordship Salvation Controversy has been around for ages–ever since repentance lost its rightful place in the church’s gospel preaching. In this post, however, I will briefly trace the clear development of non-lordship theology from its early 20th century beginnings to its present form.

The Lordship Salvation Controversy can be traced back to the interaction of two early 20th century theologians, Lewis Sperry Chafer and Benjamin B. Warfield. Warfield was concerned about Chafer’s soteriology, claiming, “in [Chafer] we hear of two kinds of Christians whom he designates respectively ‘carnal men’ and ‘spiritual men'” (B.B. Warfield, “A Review of Lewis Sperry Chafer’s He That is Spiritual,” 324). Chafer grounded his belief in two types of Christians on his commitment to Sola Fide, claiming that, “the eternal glories which are wrought in sovereign grace are conditioned, on the human side, by faith alone” (Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, 371). Chafer claimed that repentance and faith are essentially the same thing, thus Chafer could affirm both that “repentance is essential to salvation and that none could be saved apart from repentance,” and that “it is clear that the New Testament does not impose repentance upon the unsaved as a condition of salvation” (373, 76). Chafer directly addresses how his theology should influence preaching of the gospel, claiming that, “in all gospel preaching every reference to the life lived beyond regeneration should be avoided as far as possible.”

Thus, according to Chafer, the gospel preacher is to call sinners to believe but not explicitly to repent and believe. Hence, Chafer saw two great spiritual changes taking place in Christian’s lives: “the change from the ‘natural man’ to the saved man, and the change from the ‘carnal’ man to the spiritual man” (He that is Spiritual, 8). Chafer claimed that what many evangelicals termed “repentance” and placed alongside faith should actually be placed after conversion in an act of adjustment toward the Holy Spirit. Chafer’s theology reflects the movement of removing repentance from the gospel call and placing it in the arena of sanctification. (Randall Gleason, “B. B. Warfield and Lewis S. Chafer on Sanctification,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40.2, 250). Warfield, seeing “repent and believe” (Mark 1:15) as unitary call unto salvation, claimed that “these things [repentance and faith], cannot be separated, and it is a grievous error to teach that a true believer in Christ can stop short in ‘carnality,’ though having the Spirit with him and in him” (Warfield, “A Review of Lewis Sperry Chafer’s He that is Spiritual,” 326). Warfield thus saw Chafer as teaching that Christians could be justified without experiencing the Spirit’s progressive work of regeneration.

The Lordship Salvation Controversy was later taken up in Eternity Magazine through a brief exchange between Everett F. Harrison and John R. W. Stott. Harrison, effectively workng out Chafer’s theology, placed repentance in the realm of discipleship (Everett F. Harrison, “Must Christ be Lord to be Savior? NO!” Eternity, 14). Stott, arguing that Jesus Christ must be accepted as Lord and savior, emphasized the inseparable connection between saving faith and repentance (Stott, “Must Christ be Lord to be Savior? YES!” Eternity, 17-18). In recent years, Charles C. Ryrie and Zane C. Hodges, both opponents of the lordship position, wrote books in response to John MacArthur’s The Gospel According to Jesus, a major work representing the lordship position. Ryrie, much like Chafer, argues that repentance should be understood simply to mean “changing one’s mind about Jesus,” whereas repentance that denotes a conscious turning from sin should be practiced by believers for the purpose of restoring “fellowship with our Father and His family” (Ryrie, So Great Salvation, 100). Hodges takes Chaferian theology to its logical conclusion claiming that “faith represents the call to salvation” while “the call to repentance is the call to enter into harmonious relations with God” (Hodges, Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation, 146). Hodges represents bold and significant departure from the traditional reformed position on the doctrine of repentance by clearly placing repentance in the realm of sanctification. In so doing, Hodges establishes his belief in two kinds of Christians.

MacArthur, however, claims that “repentance is a critical element of conversion” and “not simply another word for believing” (MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, 178). Therefore, while Lordship and non-lordship proponents have debated over regeneration, justification, and sanctification, it has been shown that at the heart of the lordship salvation controversy is a fundamental disagreement on the biblical doctrine of repentance. In posts to follow I will set forth a brief biblical theology of repentance and answer a number of non-lordship objections.

Drew, I edited the footnotes into parenthetical notes because older browsers do not support them. That actually shouldn’t be a problem for most, though. However, this theme is older and does not have very good formatting for the footnotes like some newer ones.

Thanks for posting this, by the way. I have been looking forward to reading your research on this topic for a while now.

I have strugled these past few years with even doubting if I was even truly saved when debating some hyper Calvinsists over free will now it looks as though more grief, anxiaety, and reasons to not let me come to that place of resting in the finished work of Christ alone and that I even belong to Jesus at all again. I know the imporatance of a changed life no one is ever the same when they have had an encounter with the Savior and been born again having the Holy Spirit living inside of them. Your whole life and would view changes dramaticaly in a heartbeat and theres no where you can go too not that you would desire it but where you can escape the knowldge of God in your heart and life. I have almost come to the conclustion to stay away from all theologians and all he doctrines being argued amounst them because in the end they leave me in a state of doubt and confusion after all each is hust like the Calvin debates uing God’s word and it is powerful. all I want to know is that loves me and that I truly am His and that He is going to finish the good work He first began in me some 30 years ago despite my periods of growth and my periods of failures be they long be they short. I just want to find rest for my soul in not having to fall into thinking I have to perform because I can not meet th requirements of a holy life demanded by God’s satandard of perfection found only in His son. i am heavy hearted once again and like I said maybe need to stay away for the all the experts on each side of these debades

How much must man turn from his sin in order to be saved? 100%? If that’s the case, no man could be saved.

How much must man submit to Christ’s Lordship in order to be saved? 100%? If that’s the case, no man could be saved.

How WILLING must a man be to turn from his sins or submit to Christ in order to be saved? 100%? THAN NO ONE COULD BE SAVED!

There is a reason why salvation is by God’s grace and mercy alone… it’s because man is utterly weak, lost, and incapable. We cannot submit to Him as we ought. We cannot turn from sin as we ought. In fact, we are slaves to sin. It’s not that we have a hold on sin, sin has a hold on us! That’s why we need a Savior.

Gregory, come to the Savior completely empty handed. Don’t try to offer Him “I turn from my sin”. Don’t try to offer Him “I submit to you as Lord”. Come as a completely incapable sinner and throw yourself on His mercy. Through this simple faith comes salvation and rest.

Lordship salvation does not reject Sola Fide and Sola Gratia. Please consult the other posts and comment threads related to this series to see where Drew and I have already addressed the objections you bring up.

I would lastly submit that included in the things God saves us from is our rebellion. The biblical teaching of reconciliation with God would result in a sham justification if it is not total.

Without repentance there is no affirmation of lordship. Please see the other posts and threads to get at what exactly we mean when we talk about the gift of grace that has its necessary result of repentance.

The Lordship Salvation controversy starts way back before the 20th century! Take a real look at history and go back to the Marrow controversy of the 1700’s. The Marrow controversy, though not called it at the time, was Lordship Salvation v. Fee Grace.